Next time try to add that he married a 9 year old. He also did very well in bringing up a religion that has produced terrorists all over the world. Let's clap for him
Next time try to add that he married a 9 year old. He also did very well in bringing up a religion that has produced terrorists all over the world. Let's clap for him
Sheikh 9 years ago
kobby, shame on you. You hide behind a fake name to insult the Holy Prophet, but Allah sees and knows you; and you will pay dearly for this, both in this world and in the hereafter. You are a cursed being and may Allah curse ... read full comment
kobby, shame on you. You hide behind a fake name to insult the Holy Prophet, but Allah sees and knows you; and you will pay dearly for this, both in this world and in the hereafter. You are a cursed being and may Allah curse you forever. You are going to suffer. Mark my word!
sumanguru kante 9 years ago
Sheikh, be tolerant, ok. If you believe he has said something out of ignorance, as a true believer as you claim to be, you don't curse your fellow being to a God who is believe to be merciful. Believers in all religions shoul ... read full comment
Sheikh, be tolerant, ok. If you believe he has said something out of ignorance, as a true believer as you claim to be, you don't curse your fellow being to a God who is believe to be merciful. Believers in all religions should be tolerant in all their doings. The masters in both religions - Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam, I believe, would has said "God (Allah), forgive them, they don't know what they are doing". Why then you, a follower curses someone you think is wrong about what you are saying? Please, religion is for the betterment of mankind, not for man's destruction. Men have caused atrocities on their fellow men in the ancient times. In modern times, we need to do away with these religious "fanatism" and tolerate each other. Sheikh I hope you agree with me. Allah bless you.
NANA YAW 9 years ago
U HAVE READ THIS FAIRY TALE AND U BELIEVE IT WITH ALL UR HEART. ARABS HATE AFRICANS AND DONT SEE US AS HUMANS.
U HAVE READ THIS FAIRY TALE AND U BELIEVE IT WITH ALL UR HEART. ARABS HATE AFRICANS AND DONT SEE US AS HUMANS.
esuoh 9 years ago
Mohammed lived a contrary life to that of what he wrote- "By their deeds (evidence) ye shall know them"-said JESUS CHRIST-.Muslims you have a choice- JESUS lIVED and TAUGHT what HE PREACHED.
Mohammed lived a contrary life to that of what he wrote- "By their deeds (evidence) ye shall know them"-said JESUS CHRIST-.Muslims you have a choice- JESUS lIVED and TAUGHT what HE PREACHED.
Liliput 9 years ago
I hope this sheik or whoever read what u have written here. Do unto others as u want others do to u. He who is quick to curse fellow is himself cursed. He who shows mercy shall be shown mercy
I hope this sheik or whoever read what u have written here. Do unto others as u want others do to u. He who is quick to curse fellow is himself cursed. He who shows mercy shall be shown mercy
Ringo Star 9 years ago
Sheikh or sould l call you mallam? Your Alla didn't see Big Mo when he was lying on top of this little vulnerable nine year old, having sex with her even though she might have asked him to stop because it was hurting. Little ... read full comment
Sheikh or sould l call you mallam? Your Alla didn't see Big Mo when he was lying on top of this little vulnerable nine year old, having sex with her even though she might have asked him to stop because it was hurting. Little Mo was ashame of his nakedness but big Mo wasn't ashame to gaze on the nakedness of a little girl. Big Mo wasn't ashame to marry his sons wife. In all these your alla did not see. Mallam(Sheikh) aren't you worried about the just cappabilities of your alla?
Kobby 9 years ago
If you don't want insults stop posting rubbish. You are rather hiding. Who is called Sheikh; it is a title. You will rather burn on earth before your stupid hell.
If you don't want insults stop posting rubbish. You are rather hiding. Who is called Sheikh; it is a title. You will rather burn on earth before your stupid hell.
NANA YAW 9 years ago
GO TO ANY ARAB LAND AND SEE HOW THEY TREAT YOU. TO ARABS, AFRICANS ARE LESS THAN DOGS. THEY DONT CARE IF YOU ARE MUSLIM OR NOT.
GO TO ANY ARAB LAND AND SEE HOW THEY TREAT YOU. TO ARABS, AFRICANS ARE LESS THAN DOGS. THEY DONT CARE IF YOU ARE MUSLIM OR NOT.
Haruna 9 years ago
You can claim that the region has produce terrorist, that is you opinion, yet the Islamic Religion has seen more people converting to the region in the mist of this you terrorist claim. If you want to know the truth read the ... read full comment
You can claim that the region has produce terrorist, that is you opinion, yet the Islamic Religion has seen more people converting to the region in the mist of this you terrorist claim. If you want to know the truth read the Qur'an, the solution for humanity. You can insult the region, but the truth is the truth.
Abu Abdul Ganiwu 9 years ago
S.A.W
S.A.W
Akwesi 9 years ago
Stop this religious nonsense and worship your true religion. This foreigners came with their religion and we are fighting ourselves. You people are quick to accept stories about whites who did wonders but don't believe th ... read full comment
Stop this religious nonsense and worship your true religion. This foreigners came with their religion and we are fighting ourselves. You people are quick to accept stories about whites who did wonders but don't believe that of Okonfo Anokyi, Asabu Amenfi and Africans
NANA YAW 9 years ago
TALK TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN ARAB NATIONS, AFRICANS ARE HATED BY ARABS. ARABS HAVE NO RESPECT AT ALL FOR AFRICANS.
TALK TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN ARAB NATIONS, AFRICANS ARE HATED BY ARABS. ARABS HAVE NO RESPECT AT ALL FOR AFRICANS.
AGYA OWUSU 9 years ago
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STORY ? DO YOU ACCEPT OTHER VERSIONS OF THE SAME STORY ? IF NOT WHY ON THE WEB ?MY ADVICE IS KEEP THIS STORY TO YOUR SELF AND SAVE US FROM YOUR TERRORIST BROTHERS !!!
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STORY ? DO YOU ACCEPT OTHER VERSIONS OF THE SAME STORY ? IF NOT WHY ON THE WEB ?MY ADVICE IS KEEP THIS STORY TO YOUR SELF AND SAVE US FROM YOUR TERRORIST BROTHERS !!!
Ringo Star 9 years ago
Chamchawala Hamza, Zamzam. The boy slept through the marriage feast because he was high on opium. It wasn't because of any divine intervention. Under the same influence he went up to heaven in Jerusalem in the night on a whit ... read full comment
Chamchawala Hamza, Zamzam. The boy slept through the marriage feast because he was high on opium. It wasn't because of any divine intervention. Under the same influence he went up to heaven in Jerusalem in the night on a white horse when there was no one around to wittness. Yes his chest was opened but he failed to see the reflection of what he was about to wroth upon this beautiful world of ours. No one have ever seen the picture of him but fanatics would cry Hoo Haaa! when l name my sons little toy Mo. What a measrable world of islam.
Ex-Moslem 9 years ago
Well said bro, long way to go, what a fairytale...
Well said bro, long way to go, what a fairytale...
K Atoh 9 years ago
Take this rubbish away. This is a kiddy lover prophet, who is only acceptable by the delusional mind!
We do not want to know anything about a faith that only seem to be a FACTORY OF TERRORISTS.
Take this rubbish away. This is a kiddy lover prophet, who is only acceptable by the delusional mind!
We do not want to know anything about a faith that only seem to be a FACTORY OF TERRORISTS.
Kobby 9 years ago
Thank you my brother
Thank you my brother
Hard Listeners 9 years ago
Every miracle of the prophet Mohammed was always seen or witnessed by him alone. Any thing else written by someone else would also be deemed not true yet any mention of the prophet's name has P.B.U.H afterwards. Why invoke pe ... read full comment
Every miracle of the prophet Mohammed was always seen or witnessed by him alone. Any thing else written by someone else would also be deemed not true yet any mention of the prophet's name has P.B.U.H afterwards. Why invoke peace for someone who reportedly showed the way of peace or brought peace to his followers?
C.Y. ANDY-K 9 years ago
It is amazing how so many millions still believe in these fairy tales. Their cosmogony and cosmology remain firmly at the primitive substantive level of rationalisation cos they were brought up that way. There is nothing we c ... read full comment
It is amazing how so many millions still believe in these fairy tales. Their cosmogony and cosmology remain firmly at the primitive substantive level of rationalisation cos they were brought up that way. There is nothing we can do about them but when they project their fairy tales into the public sphere as the truth and facts, those of us who know better must challenge them.
In view of that, I am posting something which traced the evolution of Islam as a separate religion from Christianity, from being a sect within it, just as Christianity itself was once a sect within Judaism.
Andy-K
C.Y. ANDY-K 9 years ago
This is a cut from a longer article which examined the myths around the founders of four main religions. You can verify or start your own research by simply googling for some of the key words used therein, e.g. Hagarenes, as ... read full comment
This is a cut from a longer article which examined the myths around the founders of four main religions. You can verify or start your own research by simply googling for some of the key words used therein, e.g. Hagarenes, as Muslims were earlier known.
Of Myth and Men - A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?
by Robert M. Price
www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/price_20_1.htm
________________________________________
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 20, Number 1.
______________________________________
The lives of most religious founders have come down to us, not as straight biography, but as sets of devotional myths and pious object lessons. The aim of these stories is not to inform the reader so much as to edify. As the Buddha might have said, the question of what the founder actually said or did is not among those that tend unto edification. And yet, as the great comparative religion scholar Mircea Eliade said, Western thinkers have been willing to sacrifice everything including religious faith for the sake of pure knowledge. We want to know what happened, if we can, even if that should bar us from the edification of the traditional holy tales. But, as anyone who has embarked on the journey of historical discovery knows, the effort is not without a kind of edification of its own.
Muhammad
For a long time scholars have considered Islamic origins as basically unproblematic. It seemed fairly straightforward: the founder was a figure of relatively recent history, amply documented, and many of his own writings and sayings survived. True, there had been a frenzy of fabrication, but early Muslim scholars themselves had seen this early on and moved to weed out spurious hadith (traditions of the founder's sayings and deeds). What was left seemed ample enough, as did the text of the Koran, the revelation of Allah to Muhammad. Even if one could not confess with Muslims a belief in the divine inspiration (actually, dictation) of the Koran, one still agreed the text preserved the preachments of Muhammad. The most recent generation of students of Islam, however, have broken with this consensus. GŸnter LŸling is joined by many in his opinion that Western scholars of Islam and the Koran had simply accepted the official party line of Muslim jurists and theologians regarding the sources for Muhammad and early Islamic history. The game was certainly simpler that way, just as Church history had been before F.C. Baur. In fact, Western Islamicists had done everything but accept the Koran as the revealed Word of God. In retrospect one wonders why they balked at this last step!
Perhaps the most systematic and explosive reconstruction of Islamic origins appeared over 20 years ago, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook (Cambridge UP, 1977). I will summarize their account here.
Islamic sources offer us a sanitized, party-line account of Islamic origins, one designed to provide a pedigree for a subsequent orthodoxy. Hence the tracks have been covered. If we want to get a critical look at Islamic origins, we need to start with the evidence of contemporary non-Muslim reports and then see what light these sources throw on anomalous data surviving in Islamic sources.
It seems that Muhammad first appeared as the prophetic herald of 'Umar (later revered and redefined as the second caliph after Muhammad) as the messiah. So we are told in two contemporary Jewish apocalypses. Some Jews were happy to recognize 'Umar as the messiah, even though he was an Arab (an identification not unprecedented). He would shortly drive out the Byzantine/Roman/"Edomite" occupiers of Palestine, which, Crone and Cook maintain, was liberated, contra later traditions, already in Muhammad's time.
The self-designation "Muslim" appears first on the Dome of the Rock in 691 c.e. and nowhere else till the late eighth century. Earlier sources call Muhammad's believers the Magaritai (Greek papyrus 642) or Mahgre or Mahgraye (Syriac papyrus 640s). The Arabic would be muhajirun. The early believers were known as Hagarenes because they were engaged in a Hegira/Hijra, an Exodus like that of Moses from Arabia to Palestine, the Promised Land where the messiah must manifest himself. They were organized according to the biblical 12 tribes of the Ishmaelites. The land belonged to Abraham and his seed, which naturally meant Ishmael as well as Isaac, so an alliance of Jews and Arabs in a messianic conquest was natural. Even from the Jewish point of view this seemed natural, since Kenites (understood to be Arabs) had been involved as Moses' allies in the first conquest, and the second should recapitulate it. In the Secrets of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, "the Kenite" is given messianic status.
They rejected Jesus as a false messiah and scorned the cross. But their own messianism appears to have been more Samaritan than Jewish in orientation, which meant the Promised One would be a prophet like Moses, not a king like David. There was, however, some hope that the Hagarenes, having conquered Palestine, were going to rebuild the temple. They wound up raising the Dome of the Rock instead. Rebuilding the temple would have implied Davidic messianism, but they didn't do it.
Their movement may be understood in many ways as a kind of Samaritanism. There was the non-Davidic Mosaism, the rejection of any books outside the Pentateuch (as attested in Nestorian accounts of debates with the Hagarenes), a non-Jewish biblical covenant (for Samaritans, it was the Mosaic Covenant as opposed to the Davidic; for Hagarenes, it was the Abrahamic promise to Ishmael). The dispensing with the Prophetic books explains why none of the so-called writing Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Hosea, Amos, etc.) is ever mentioned in the Koran.
As implied just above, as the winds changed, the Hagarenes found it advantageous to break with Judaism and turn to Christianity. To this end, 'Umar's messianic status was forgotten; his title al-Faruq, The Redeemer, was explained away as a gratuitous honorific applied by over-enthusiastic Christians (not likely!) or as meaning something else in Arabic by means of a typical etymological story. Accordingly, Jesus was accepted as messiah after all. Though the first Arabic "king" of Jerusalem made a show of praying at Golgotha, Bethlehem, and the Empty Tomb, implying acceptance of the whole soteriology, Islam did not finally go this far. They made Jesus messiah but still rejected the cross. The Koran opts for "docetism," the belief that the Crucifixion was a "simulacrum," an illusion or hoax, with Jesus ascending to heaven before he could be executed. But the Koran also refers to the death of Jesus, a vestige of that earlier period of Christianization, and this reference would become the center of desperate theological harmonization among later orthodox Islamic exegetes.
The abandonment of the Exodus (Hegira/Hijra) association in favor of that of "sons of Hagar/Ishmaelites" reflects the disassociation from Judaism. So does the apparent adoption of "Islam" ("submission" to God) as the new central image for the faith, a topos derived from Samaritan characterizations of Abraham as the one who submitted to God. The harking back to Abraham parallels the argument in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul leapfrogs the Mosaic Torah and makes Christian believers the direct spiritual descendants of Abraham. In both cases, the retreat to Abraham is a means of undercutting Judaism. And, though not preserved in the Koran, contemporary non-Islamic sources say the Muslims originally proclaimed the commandments of Abraham, circumcision and sacrifice (brought over from prior Arab tradition), rebuking Jews and Christians for abandoning one or the other. Muhammad's role as the one to revive the Abrahamic faith, as well as to bring to the neglected Arabs their own monotheistic faith and scripture, reflects this attempt to distance Islam from Judaism. Muhammad is seen as the successor of various Gentile prophets like Salih and Hud, again, not the successor of the biblical prophets. This prophetology ill comports with the Samaritan-derived motif of Muhammad as the Prophet like unto Moses, which is thus seen to stem from an earlier stage, because the Samaritan-type Mosaic prophetology still locates Muhammad within the biblical tradition, whereas Muhammad as the Prophet like Hud takes him outside the Bible but parallel to it.
Muhammad was retroactively removed from his apocalyptic context, as we can readily see when we compare the so-called Meccan Surahs with the Medinan Surahs. In the latter he is no longer the Prophet of the Last Day (much less proclaimer of the messiah 'Umar), but rather the Mosaic theocrat. Similarly, for Islam Jesus' own messiahship is purely vestigial, and Jesus, too, is made over into a prophet like unto Moses, with his own Torah, the Evangel. David, too, is brought aboard once stripped of his messianic associations. He, too, is now a prophet like unto Moses: Muslims say Moses brought the Law, David brought the Psalms, and Jesus brought the Gospel.
The Koran was assembled from a variety of prior Hagarene texts (hence the contradictions re Jesus' death) in order to provide the Moses-like Muhammad with a Torah of his own. (LŸling surmises that as much as a third of the text of the Koran derives from pre-Islamic Christian hymnody!) Some Islamic traditions say that the third caliph, Uthman, destroyed most of "the writings" and kept only one. Does this mean merely variant texts of the Koran itself (as is usually supposed) or something more? Perhaps a creative redaction like that of Ezra after the Babylonian Exile, patching together our Pentateuch from the J, E, D, and P sources? This would account for all the Koranic variants, redundancies, contradictions, and harmonizations (earlier revelations "abrogated" by later ones). Perhaps the scraps of anti-Trinitarian Christological polemics are vestiges from disparate sources, too.
The Hagarenes also derived from the Samaritans a precedent for withdrawing from Jerusalem as the central holy shrine, eventually settling upon Mecca, which, like the Samaritan center Shechem, was situated near a patriarchal, but non-Judean, grave, Shechem near the grave of Joseph, Mecca near that of Ishmael. Both were Abrahamic sites as well. There is evidence, though, that Mecca was not the first alternative shrine of the Hagarenes. From some early and anomalous notes and from archaeological evidence (the design of early mosques, etc.), it appears that, before Mecca, a place called Bakka (actually mentioned in the Koran and later harmonistically identified with Mecca) may have been the earlier site.
The holy cities Mecca and Medinah are both substitutes for biblical sites originally venerated by the proto-Muslim Hagarenes. Medinah is identified in some Arab sources with Midian, which makes sense as the goal of the Exodus (the "hegira" of the "Hagarenes," remember). Midian was the goal of Moses and the Israelites exiting Egypt, and the site of Sinai/Horeb, where Moses received the Torah, just as Muhammad did at Medinah (cf. the legalistic Surahs ascribed to the Medinan period). The fact that Medinah had earlier been called Yathrib suggests that Medinah first actually referred to the Midian of the Bible, then was transferred and symbolically reapplied to Yathrib. And now, of course, since the Hegira has been redefined as Muhammad's personal flight from Mecca, its goal must have been Medinah/Yathrib, not the faraway biblical Midian! But then one wonders whether there might even have been some sort of connection with the biblical Jethro (Hebrew Yithro) and Yathrib!
After the Hegira lost its original coloring as a messianic Jewish-Ishmaelite exodus to Palestine under the messiah 'Umar, this population move was recast as a later expulsion of Jews from Arabia back to Palestine by the caliph 'Umar! The appellation Ansaru Allah, Allah's helpers, which had first designated Jewish allies of Muhammad and 'Umar, came to refer to Arabs who heeded the call to holy war.
As for Mecca, this was another later replacement or relocation of Jerusalem, as is still evident from the acknowledged fact that the qiblah (direction of prayer) was early on switched from Jerusalem to Mecca. The idea of the conquest of Canaan starting from a base in Midian becomes Muhammad's triumphant return to Mecca after consolidating power in Medinah where he had fled from Mecca. But originally, Muhammad himself actually led/partook in the conquest of Palestine. Subsequently, his death was pushed back two years earlier, perhaps in order to reinforce the Moses parallel, since Moses did not get to enter the promised land.
Originally "caliph" denoted not "vicar of the Prophet" as in subsequent Islamic orthodoxy, but rather something equivalent to rasul (apostle) or bab (gate-cf. John 10:9), the earthly stand-in for Allah himself. The caliphs and imams were originally a priesthood (Muhammad himself is said to stem from the Quraiysh, a priestly caste) and were even called kahins (originally "soothsayer," but in Hebrew it came to mean "priest," cohen). This implies that once they de-messianized the movement and demoted 'Umar to caliph of Muhammad, the authority structure continued (along one trajectory, leading to Sunni Islam) as an analogue to the Samaritan high priesthood.
Mahdism (the expectation, central to emerging Shi'ism, of an apocalyptic return of a descendant of Muhammad) was equally early but represented a renewal, albeit by deferral, of messianic hopes, based originally on the Samaritan Moses redivivus idea (whether of Moses himself, or of the Taheb as a prophet/revealer like unto Moses). Mahdi is tantamount to messiah, as attested by the equation of the two in the Sunni saying "There is no mahdi but Jesus son of Mary."
Ali, cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, was interpreted in two contradictory manners, one by each group. As a priestly successor (fountainhead of the imams, a term used for Samaritan high priests/esoteric teachers in Arabic writings by Samaritans), Ali had to be the descendant of Muhammad. And in fact Shi'ite doctrine sees Ali as explicitly playing Aaron to Muhammad's Moses. But, as the sole successor to Moses, he was analogous instead to Joshua, a layman and not a relative of Moses. The eventual harmonization of the two conceptions made Ali not the son but the cousin of the Prophet.
The rabbinical character of Sunni Islam is not original but came from the influence of Babylonian Judaism. (Thus it is no mere analogy between the Talmud, the Jewish legal code, and the Shariah, the Islamic code.) The category of Sunni first referred not to traditions of the Prophet, but rather just to "custom" as distinguished from statute law. It still appears this way in early documents. And this means that all we thought we knew of the Prophet Muhammad is really a mass of fictive legal precedents meant to anchor this or that Islamic practice once Muhammad had been recast as an Arab Moses. And the question of the origin of the Koran is no longer "from Allah?" or "from Muhammad?" but rather "from Muhammad?" or "from countless unnamed Hagarene jurists?" The first question was theological ("Do you accept the Muslim gospel?"); the second is historical-critical ("Are you taken in by the Muslim apologetic?"). And it becomes equally evident that the line between the Koran and the hadith must be erased, for both alike are now seen to be repositories of sayings fictively attributed to the Prophet and transmitted by word of mouth before being codified in canonical written form.
Conclusion
Our survey of the four great religious founders is offered on the cusp of the millennium. This fact might prompt us to look to the dawning future, but we are drawn rather to the past, gazing down the corridors of lost time, straining to catch what stray traces may still be visible. The sheer magnitude of the centuries separating us from the earliest, the Buddha, as well as the latest, Muhammad, is so great as to raise the question whether historical knowledge of the founders is either necessary or possible. For it has become manifest that the images of these individuals at once began to transform and grow as living symbols of the faith communities whose figureheads they were. This implies that the various believers simply lacked the historical curiosity of us moderns. Their stories were told for other reasons entirely. Insofar as our studies dismantle their edifice of holy myth, we have perhaps debunked only a literalistic distortion of these faiths, itself alien to the traditions it seeks misguidedly to defend. In any event, such scrutiny of the founders and their legends aims only at a greater appreciation of the religions as grand cultural products of the human imagination.
______________________________________
Robert M. Price is Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute and a member of the Free Inquiry Editorial Board. He is a member of the Jesus Seminar and is Regional Director of New York and North New Jersey for the Council for Secular Humanism. His book, Deconstructing Jesus, will appear in January from Prometheus Books.
______________________________________
Dantankwa 9 years ago
Yours is a beautiful rendition of the Prophet's life history. My suggestions is that you find a much refined medium to share such thoughts. Over here, there are just many haters of Islam who hardly spare a moment to read wha ... read full comment
Yours is a beautiful rendition of the Prophet's life history. My suggestions is that you find a much refined medium to share such thoughts. Over here, there are just many haters of Islam who hardly spare a moment to read what you write. They keep mounting insults upon insults. The good news is that Islam will continue to grow and grow.
Next time try to add that he married a 9 year old. He also did very well in bringing up a religion that has produced terrorists all over the world. Let's clap for him
kobby, shame on you. You hide behind a fake name to insult the Holy Prophet, but Allah sees and knows you; and you will pay dearly for this, both in this world and in the hereafter. You are a cursed being and may Allah curse ...
read full comment
Sheikh, be tolerant, ok. If you believe he has said something out of ignorance, as a true believer as you claim to be, you don't curse your fellow being to a God who is believe to be merciful. Believers in all religions shoul ...
read full comment
U HAVE READ THIS FAIRY TALE AND U BELIEVE IT WITH ALL UR HEART. ARABS HATE AFRICANS AND DONT SEE US AS HUMANS.
Mohammed lived a contrary life to that of what he wrote- "By their deeds (evidence) ye shall know them"-said JESUS CHRIST-.Muslims you have a choice- JESUS lIVED and TAUGHT what HE PREACHED.
I hope this sheik or whoever read what u have written here. Do unto others as u want others do to u. He who is quick to curse fellow is himself cursed. He who shows mercy shall be shown mercy
Sheikh or sould l call you mallam? Your Alla didn't see Big Mo when he was lying on top of this little vulnerable nine year old, having sex with her even though she might have asked him to stop because it was hurting. Little ...
read full comment
If you don't want insults stop posting rubbish. You are rather hiding. Who is called Sheikh; it is a title. You will rather burn on earth before your stupid hell.
GO TO ANY ARAB LAND AND SEE HOW THEY TREAT YOU. TO ARABS, AFRICANS ARE LESS THAN DOGS. THEY DONT CARE IF YOU ARE MUSLIM OR NOT.
You can claim that the region has produce terrorist, that is you opinion, yet the Islamic Religion has seen more people converting to the region in the mist of this you terrorist claim. If you want to know the truth read the ...
read full comment
S.A.W
Stop this religious nonsense and worship your true religion. This foreigners came with their religion and we are fighting ourselves. You people are quick to accept stories about whites who did wonders but don't believe th ...
read full comment
TALK TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN ARAB NATIONS, AFRICANS ARE HATED BY ARABS. ARABS HAVE NO RESPECT AT ALL FOR AFRICANS.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STORY ? DO YOU ACCEPT OTHER VERSIONS OF THE SAME STORY ? IF NOT WHY ON THE WEB ?MY ADVICE IS KEEP THIS STORY TO YOUR SELF AND SAVE US FROM YOUR TERRORIST BROTHERS !!!
Chamchawala Hamza, Zamzam. The boy slept through the marriage feast because he was high on opium. It wasn't because of any divine intervention. Under the same influence he went up to heaven in Jerusalem in the night on a whit ...
read full comment
Well said bro, long way to go, what a fairytale...
Take this rubbish away. This is a kiddy lover prophet, who is only acceptable by the delusional mind!
We do not want to know anything about a faith that only seem to be a FACTORY OF TERRORISTS.
Thank you my brother
Every miracle of the prophet Mohammed was always seen or witnessed by him alone. Any thing else written by someone else would also be deemed not true yet any mention of the prophet's name has P.B.U.H afterwards. Why invoke pe ...
read full comment
It is amazing how so many millions still believe in these fairy tales. Their cosmogony and cosmology remain firmly at the primitive substantive level of rationalisation cos they were brought up that way. There is nothing we c ...
read full comment
This is a cut from a longer article which examined the myths around the founders of four main religions. You can verify or start your own research by simply googling for some of the key words used therein, e.g. Hagarenes, as ...
read full comment
Yours is a beautiful rendition of the Prophet's life history. My suggestions is that you find a much refined medium to share such thoughts. Over here, there are just many haters of Islam who hardly spare a moment to read wha ...
read full comment